Microsoft has modified its antitrust settlement with the European Union in response to complaints from other browser makers.

Microsoft's offer to give consumers a choice of browsers to comply with antitrust claims by the European Union has undergone several changes in response to concerns raised by competing browser developers.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the modified agreement offers Windows users a "ballot screen" that will randomly list the five top web browsers. Users would be given the option to select a browser that will then be downloaded from the Internet.

Concerns were raised by Opera, Google, and Mozilla over the planned ballot concept when it was first announced due to plans to have the browsers listed in alphabetical order. This would have placed Apple's Safari browser first. "More competition in the browser space will mean greater innovation on the Web and a better user experience for people everywhere," Google spokesman Bill Echikson reportedly said.

The European Union's antitrust claim against Microsoft stemmed from its belief that the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows was an abuse of Microsoft's stance in the market. The EU claimed that the widespread use of Internet Explorer forced outside developers and programmers to work towards optimizing their products exclusively for the Microsoft browser, therefore limiting the features available to potential users.

According to November numbers by Net Applications, Internet explorer has fallen in total market share to capture 63.62 percent of the market, followed by Firefox with 24.72 and Safari with 4.36 percent.

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

It isn't BS. Unlike in the US, in Europe the governments actually tend to be less influenced by lobbyists.

Further, Microsoft undoubtedly was found guilty of abusing it Windows' operating system Monopoly to gain an advantage with it's web browser. It never would have the lead with web browsers if it didn't twist hardware manufacturers arms to install Explorer at the expense of Netscape. THe EU now wants Microsoft to level the field based on it's abusive history and let users choose what browser to have installed by default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheff

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

Instead of people being like trained monkeys and clicking the blue "E" for internet. They get to use different browsers and learn different ways of achieving the same result.

Instead of web operators making their sites Windows IE only, like a lot of real estate software is set up, they will be forced to adhere to WWW3 standards.

Same should go for Office type software, instead of Microsoft Office all the time, perhaps they will now learn how to use OpenOffice or other brands to achieve the same results.

Files will become more inter-compatible with other softwares, a OpenOffice user can open a Office file and vice versa.

This diversification will also reduce malware, people learn that if one browser doesn't work well they can use another quite easily. Right now the way it is people are scared not to use Internet Explorer or their computer won't work. It stems from the fact that IE was used in XP to upgrade the OS.

This is good for Mac's because people learn and say "hey!, if I can use another browser, I can use another operating system!" and the ball just keeps on rolling.

Now what Apple needs is a demo version of OS X that will run in a custom virtual machine for Windows. A Windows user can boot the OS X demo app and it will run OS X in a window and they can get used to that, even run a few programs to get used to the Mac operating system. Make it easy to switch.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.

These regulators should move along already......

PS: I am not a fan on MSFT, by any stretch.

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

I think if Microsoft had been broken up 10 years ago, each part would be in a better position than it is now.

I don't mean a Windows company and an Office company - I mean if one company got the latest Office 2003 code and Windows ME, while the other got the latest Windows code and Office 2000/Works. The resulting evolution and competition between each other would have made it harder for other companies.

I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.

That's Foxfire, by the way.

If you've ever installed Firefox on a senior citizen's computer, you know what I mean....

I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.

These regulators should move along already......

PS: I am not a fan on MSFT, by any stretch.

Your argument falls apart at "I want Firefox". I don't think you realize how many people still don't know there is an alternative to internet explorer.

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

It's perfectly legal to dominate a market. It's illegal to use that domination to restrain trade. That's why Microsoft has been hauled up on antitrust violations (in both the US and Europe) and Google has not. It only looks like BS to people who don't understand the basic purpose of antitrust laws.

It’s funny. This idea was mentioned long before the suit, including making it randomized.

I wonder how they are going to ensure it’s truly random. It’s not an easy thing to do with a computer and any favoritism toward IE will likely make the news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheff

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell

It isn't BS. Unlike in the US, in Europe the governments actually tend to be less influenced by lobbyists.

Further, Microsoft undoubtedly was found guilty of abusing it Windows' operating system Monopoly to gain an advantage with it's web browser. It never would have the lead with web browsers if it didn't twist hardware manufacturers arms to install Explorer at the expense of Netscape. THe EU now wants Microsoft to level the field based on it's abusive history and let users choose what browser to have installed by default.

Is it possible to agree with both of you? MS did abuse their monopoly position but this case was brought up well after Firefox and others had found a way to regain control. A decade ago this would have been a valid case. The US v. Mircosoft case was first brought up in 1998. So much for pro-MS lobbyists there.

I think Gassée had a valid point...

Quote:

Jean-Louis Gassée, CEO of Be Inc. […] criticized the emphasis on the "packaging problem." He claimed […] incorporation with the operating system was due to consumer expectation to have a browser packaged with the operating system. For example, BeOS comes packaged with its web browser, NetPositive, and Mac OS X with Safari.

Instead, he argued, Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market

Sometimes I feel bad for people like Gassée who have good products but still can’t get a foothold. I wonder what Macs would be like today if BeOS was used and if Jobs never came back to Apple.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

yes hopefully the next step will be to force pc manufacturers to install open office

Unless MS starting bundling MS Office with Windows for free there is no reason why that would happen. Now, OEMs could install it along with all their 3rd-party pay-for-placement crapware and their homegrown crapware, but that is different.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Is it possible to agree with both of you? MS did abuse their monopoly position but this case was brought up well after Firefox and others had found a way to regain control. A decade ago this would have been a valid case. The US v. Mircosoft case was first brought up in 1998. So much for pro-MS obbyists there.

Maybe. The EU is still on Microsoft's case because the EU competition laws are different, and more aggressive. They seem to look less at issues such as market share and more at barriers to competition. If a developer has to go through Microsoft to get their products seen, and Microsoft uses that position to advantage their products in competition, then its seems that's prima facie evidence of abuse, according to EU law. I believe this why EU regulators are so adamant about making choice explicit rather than something a consumer has to discover on their own. The hurdle is higher in the US.

If a developer has to go through Microsoft to get their products seen, and Microsoft uses that position to advantage their products in competition, then its seems that's prima facie evidence of abuse, according to EU law. I believe this why EU regulators are so adamant about making choice explicit rather than something a consumer has to discover on their own. The hurdle is higher in the US.

If that is the case then why take it to court a decade after the US did when the internet and choice was less well known among consumers than it is now. To me, this is like the RIAA trying to argue as late as 2008 that copying your CD to your computer for playing or backup, and/or changing the audio format are violations and not permitted by fair use. They are both about a decade late to the party, but at least the EU actually got somewhere.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I dint ie. I've used pcs for years, Thank God for Chrome, but ie is just so busy and all those noises. They have to be turned off. It's just silly really.

You would think with the millions, no, billions, they could make a great computer. And for the love if God, pleas make a comuter that has something close to iLife v they have the money for crying out loud. How hard can it be.

Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

This is a good thing.

Instead of people being like trained monkeys and clicking the blue "E" for internet. They get to use different browsers and learn different ways of achieving the same result.

Instead of web operators making their sites Windows IE only, like a lot of real estate software is set up, they will be forced to adhere to WWW3 standards.

Same should go for Office type software, instead of Microsoft Office all the time, perhaps they will now learn how to use OpenOffice or other brands to achieve the same results.

Files will become more inter-compatible with other softwares, a OpenOffice user can open a Office file and vice versa.

This diversification will also reduce malware, people learn that if one browser doesn't work well they can use another quite easily. Right now the way it is people are scared not to use Internet Explorer or their computer won't work. It stems from the fact that IE was used in XP to upgrade the OS.

This is good for Mac's because people learn and say "hey!, if I can use another browser, I can use another operating system!" and the ball just keeps on rolling.

Now what Apple needs is a demo version of OS X that will run in a custom virtual machine for Windows. A Windows user can boot the OS X demo app and it will run OS X in a window and they can get used to that, even run a few programs to get used to the Mac operating system. Make it easy to switch.

But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.

But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.

A pseudo random number would be fine for the job. It's just about giving each browser equal (or near as) exposure. And pseudo random would average out fine eventually. Just seed it (the algorithm) with the time.

I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.

These regulators should move along already......

PS: I am not a fan on MSFT, by any stretch.

It always amazes me that people on this board assume people without a technical background should have to suffer because they don't understand how to do something the same as you do. Should a senior citizen just be stuck with the crap Microsoft serve up because they don't know any better?

I think this is an example of regulation working properly - Microsoft massively abused their position to push IE, and I like that someone is pushing back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because theyre good with numbers. It couldnt be farthest from the truth.

You are absolutely right, in theory, there is no such thing as a computer program that can be truly random though in practice, anyone who wanted to be difficult would have a hard time demonstrating MS are being unfair, assuming they put some effort into it.

I told you guys the EU was out of touch.... They can't even get something as simple as corruption and abuse of power right!

Oh please trust me, they can. Any democratic organisation that gains a president and new powers without a vote knows how to do corruption and abuse of power. Of course, a few people did get a vote. And if they voted wrong, they even got another go for free!

This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

"I dont need Firefox because I only use the Internet, thats why I use Internet Explorer."

how f..ing true
i have dozens of friends clients still on I E
some even pay twice with AOL service
The fear by millions of hitting the wrong button and losing all rheir data >> ties them to do exactly what they know . NOT one tiny extra thing

Ha, I love the quote I hear so many people say regarding the iPhone...

"I don't need an iPhone, I only use my phone for making calls..."

Well duh! Thats cos your old nokia 6110 (or equivalent) can't do anything else even if you wanted it to.

i only want to make calls also
i don't need to pay 100 a month to shop amazon from my phone
i don't need to pay for the right to shop
i don't need to be tied down to 2 yr death contracts
countless millions never use or want to use all those confusing extra's anyway

funny how no one makes a simple powerful cell phone that never drops calls
and does only that for a cheap buy price and cheap minute price
no one yet
right now the teleco's only want to suck our money and give us little in return

for many an everything in the sun including kitchen sink swiss army knife phone is what they want or need . then buy an iphone ....

i only want to make calls also
i don't need to pay 100 a month to shop amazon from my phone
i don't need to pay for the right to shop
i don't need to be tied down to 2 yr death contracts
countless millions never use or want to use all those confusing extra's anyway

funny how no one makes a simple powerful cell phone that never drops calls
and does only that for a cheap buy price and cheap minute price
no one yet
right now the teleco's only want to suck our money and give us little in return

for many an everything in the sun including kitchen sink swiss army knife phone is what they want or need . then buy an iphone ....

It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.

If that is the case then why take it to court a decade after the US did when the internet and choice was less well known among consumers than it is now. To me, this is like the RIAA trying to argue as late as 2008 that copying your CD to your computer for playing or backup, and/or changing the audio format are violations and not permitted by fair use. They are both about a decade late to the party, but at least the EU actually got somewhere.

Beats me. FWIW, we'd have gotten a lot more more competition protection out of U.S. v. Microsoft had it not been for the election of 2000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

The fundamental role of antitrust law is to prevent consumers from getting gouged by monopolies and collusive firms, not to legislate against ignorance and stupidity.

Antitrust laws are not intended to protect consumers, they are intended to protect competition. It can certainly be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers, but this is an indirect benefit, and not the purpose of the laws.